ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact Technical that the issuance of notice by AO u/s 148 of the Act Ground after an expiry of four years without recording the satisfaction as required under first provision of section 147 of the Act, is bad in law. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ABAN OFFSHORE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact Technical that the issuance of notice by AO u/s 148 of the Act Ground after an expiry of four years without recording the satisfaction as required under first provision of section 147 of the Act, is bad in law. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

M/S ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact Technical that the issuance of notice by AO u/s 148 of the Act Ground after an expiry of four years without recording the satisfaction as required under first provision of section 147 of the Act, is bad in law. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

YUGENDIRAN VISHNUPRIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3241 &3242/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-18) Yugendiran Vishnupriya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Door No.284/3, International Tax, Thiruveni Colony, Bellyarea, Ward 2(2) Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Chennai. [Pan: Apzpv 9903M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

144C(5) dated 26.02.2024. 2. The registry has noted delay of 202 days in filing the appeals. Considering the reasons as stated in the affidavit by the Assessee i.e; ‘instead of preferring appeals before the Tribunal had filed appeals before the CIT(A)’, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the appeal for adjudication

YUGENDIRAN VISHNUPRIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3241 &3242/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-18) Yugendiran Vishnupriya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Door No.284/3, International Tax, Thiruveni Colony, Bellyarea, Ward 2(2) Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Chennai. [Pan: Apzpv 9903M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

144C(5) dated 26.02.2024. 2. The registry has noted delay of 202 days in filing the appeals. Considering the reasons as stated in the affidavit by the Assessee i.e; ‘instead of preferring appeals before the Tribunal had filed appeals before the CIT(A)’, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the appeal for adjudication

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') for the\n assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18 dated 29.03.2024,\n29.03.2024 and 29.03.2024 respectively. The CO has been raised by the\nassessee for the A.Y.2015-16 only. Since the facts are common/identical and\nthe issue of assessee's claim of depreciation on goodwill arising on\namalgamation

TECTON ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION LLC,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 358/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

condone the delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation - 2(2), Chennai dated 30.01.2016 for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances

MANIMOZHIAN VAIDEKI,SIVAGANGAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2025/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2016-17 Manimozhian Vaideki, The Assistant Commissioner No.77, Ward-1, Devappattu Vs. Of Income Tax, Kallal, International Taxation Circle, Sivagangai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-630 305. [Pan:Azcpv7593C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit

section 144C(5) of the Act and before the finalization of the final assessment order, the Assessee opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The said Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application stood rejected by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Thereafter, the Assessee filed a rectification petition before the Learned PCIT which was stated to be not disposed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. HITACHI SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed\nby the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND\nSHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपीलसं./IT(TP)A No.: 17/CHNY/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nHitachi Solutions India Private\nLimited,\nBlock 5, 10th Floor, 1/124,\nDLF IT Park, Shivaji Gardens,\nMount Poonamallee Road,\nChennai - 600 089.\nThe Deputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax,\nVs. Corporate Circle- 1(1),\nNo.121, M.G.Road,\nChennai - 600 034.\n[PAN:AAACZ-1544-R]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the revenue\nfor adjudication.\n3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in\nIT(TP)A No.: 17/CHNY/2024:\n1.\nProcedural irregularity and violation of principles of natural justice.\n1. 1. The Learned Assessing Officer (\"Ld. AO\") has grievously erred, in law by\nmaking a reference

M/S. SECUREKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3232/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Securekloud Technologies Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Bascon Futura Sv 5Th Floor, Corporate Circle 3(1), 10/1 Venkatanarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aabcp6266D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.V. Swaroop, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 18 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 18 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said

SUNTEC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

5 of the DRP directions dated 09.09.2024) wherein it was specifically submitted that assessee had an operating margin from provision for software products sales and services which was held to be at :- 8 -: arm’s length price by the TPO even after including this salary cost allocation. Therefore, adjustment on the amount inclusive of the cost sharing invoice raised

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL CONTRACTING COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the C

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.909/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 05.05.2017. 2. There is a delay of 11 days in filing C.O No.80/Chny/2024 by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the C.O and satisfied that there was sufficient

RIAZ ALI,TIRUVARUR vs. ITO, INT TAX WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/2025 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Riaz Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.2-A, Puliyangudi North (International Taxation)-2(1), Street, Koothanallur, Tiruvarur, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-614 101. [Pan:Auepr2020H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2025, Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Intl Taxn Ward 2(1) Che, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.147 R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Dated 26.12.2024. 2 Ita No.790/Chny/2025 (Ay 2018-19) Riaz Ali

144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru dated 26.12.2024. 2 ITA No.790/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Riaz Ali 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel Ms. T.V. Muthu Abhirami, Advocate for the assessee has raised an additional ground relating to jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer

CHELLAPPAN SANKARANATHAN,SIVAGANGA vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE, MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.930/2025 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20)

144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru dated 31.12.2024. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel Mr. N.V. Narayanan, Advocate for the assessee has raised an additional ground relating to jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘JAO’) in the light of the CBDT Notification dated

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act') for the\n assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18 dated 29.03.2024,\n29.03.2024 and 29.03.2024 respectively. The CO has been raised by the\nassessee for the A.Y.2015-16 only. Since the facts are common/identical and\nthe issue of assessee's claim of depreciation on goodwill arising on\namalgamation

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act') for the\n assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18 dated 29.03.2024,\n29.03.2024 and 29.03.2024 respectively. The CO has been raised by the\nassessee for the A.Y.2015-16 only. Since the facts are common/identical and\nthe issue of assessee's claim of depreciation on goodwill arising on\namalgamation